Lol is this your new go to? People say things, and you just repeat that the things they say are empty talking points? Sad. You can't use Conservative and Liberal on the court interchangeably with conservative and liberal politically. It's not the same thing. A Conservative justice is called conservative because of his or her approach to interpreting the Constitution, not because of what political party he or she supports. In the decision I posted on just the last page, Gorsuch ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessarily also discrimination "because of sex." Title VII covers discrimination because of sex. A Conservative, or an "originalist" should read Title VII, see that neither sexual orientation or gender identity are covered in the text, consider the time in which Title VII was written (1964), understand that sexual orientation was likely not intended to be included by the writer, and gender identity CERTAINLY was not intended to be included by the writer, and then rule that it's not discrimination under Title VII. From there, if the legislature wants to pass a new law that makes firing gay or transgender people because of their being gay or transgender illegal, they're free to do so. That's the way the country was designed to operate. It is not the Supreme Court's job to write the law or impose their own policy views on the Constitution.
This is not at all true. Even Scalia couldn't his own people to buy strict interpretation, which is this idea that you take laws as written. All justices cite law when making a Constitutional consideration. Neither is about imposing a view that isn't backed by the Constitution, law, or precedent. As to the feelings, thing, this is pure fantasy. Read dissents. We can absolutely agree that we don't agree on what these three things mean, but Gorsuch or Kavanaugh crossing the line here or there doesn't make either a moderate. I've pointed to the 14th Amendment for the ruling that you think makes one of them a moderate, and I got crickets.
Yes, do you struggle to understand what that sentence means? Should I break it down? I - me would - the action I take add two seats - means add two seats and consider - means give thought to, without action adding four - means add four Does this help? Which word is giving trouble?
I said trust in the legitimacy of the court is already deeply damaged. you originally indicated adding seats would make it political, but have then gone on to describe it entirely through a political lens. That you think kavanaugh and Gorsuch are moderate based on a couple of rulings screams how broken the court already is. So there's nothing risked by attempting to balance it.
I finally figured this one out, and it's just more of you lacking reading comprehension, coupled with a poor memory, and terrible association. First, the dude's handle was LWSVOL. (poor memory) And his shtick was saying that, basically, something would happen, or nothing would happen. "He'll be a Vol, unless he isn't." type statements. But I'm not saying that nothing would happen, I'm saying that something would absolutely happen. (Terrible association, as something absolutely happening is not the same as "maybe" happening). But what would absolutely happen would be variable, but to add the four, there would need to be a very compelling argument. But the need for two would need no argument. (Lacking reading comprehension).
I didn’t say Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are moderate based on a couple rulings. I stated that while most people suggested they would be staunchly conservative, they have been relatively moderate in their ruling during their short time on the Supreme Court. Did I say that adding seats “makes” it political? I don’t think I did. Adding seats is a political action, but it’s been political. Because the left wants to legislate from the bench. Go back and listen the speech from Obama about empathy.
Well put LWSVOL. I thought miss spelling the name might delay you figuring out the comment. I like that you took the time to figure it out.
Of course. Biden lies repeatedly about Ukraine, but we need to ignore it, because hes a dem and everybody else is stupid. The lefty way. Clown show.
it's all fake, it isn't even an internally consistent narrative. even the metadata of the pdfs of the email show that this stuff was manufactured.